this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
385 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3350 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Trump shocked and appalled some Republican lawmakers on Wednesday by announcing plans to nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general.

Why it matters: Republican reaction to even Trump's most controversial nominations has been muted so far, but placing the scandal-prone right-winger in the nation's highest law enforcement role is a step too far for many.

"We wanted him out of the House ... this isn't what we were thinking," quipped one House Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about Trump's decision.

What we're hearing: Trump's announcement was met with audible gasps by House Republicans during a conference meeting on Wednesday afternoon, multiple sources in the room told Axios.

One House Republican in the meeting described the conference's response as "stunned and disgusted."

What they're saying: "Gaetz has a better shot at having dinner with Queen Elizabeth II than being confirmed by the senate," said Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), referring to the British monarch who died in 2022.

Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.), noting that Gaetz is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, said he would be "a compromised AG" and that "there are better choices."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she was "shocked" by the pick: "This shows why the advice and consent process is so important and I'm sure that there will be a lot of questions raised at his hearing."

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said Gaetz has "got his work really cut out for him" to get confirmed.

(page 2) 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

It's just gonna be never ending laughing to keep from crying from here on out.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In other news, the nomination of Matt Gaetz as AG by Donald Trump has moved the Mitt Romney Outrage Meter from "distasteful" to "bothersome".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

How many steps are we away from a furrowed brow?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Always thought he looked more like Beavis, myself.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

Everybody's surprised that he's picked this guy , but it's because he's compromised that he's picked him.

He has or will have all the shady shit he's done on his desk every morning they have a meeting to remind him what to do.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No, they aren't. Quit lying.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Outrageous choice.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"This shows why the advice and consent process is so important and I'm sure that there will be a lot of questions raised at his hearing," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) who added that she was "shocked" by the pick.”

Fuck. She’s going to vote for him, isn’t she…

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago

Remember. According to Susan Collins, he learned his lesson with his first impeachment so he won't do corruption and crime stuff again. Because Trump pinky swore. Or something.

Of course she'll rubber stamp it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

No they aren't.

They voted for it and they wanted this.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Elect a clown, expect a circus.

Common guys, we've already been through this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Every one of them will fall in line when they remember Trump's daughter in-law runs the RNC and their reelection funds are now contingent on obedience.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 days ago (3 children)

People credibly accused of sex with children have to stick up for each other.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I wonder if they've reached out to Dave Coulier in his fragile state.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 110 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I feel like we're going to see a lot of "Republicans ashamed of Trump" headlines while they sign their names in blood on everything he asks for.

If they wanted to, they could simply choose not to certify the election results or they could impeach and vote to remove him.

They won't. They're all complicit.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They're rightly scared of not being re-elected for daring to oppose him. Or worse.

Mark my words, you are going to see a LOT of railing against rebel Republicans from Trump. Or what few are left, anyway.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago

Why in the world would Republicans think that Trump would make sensible appointments? What has he done in the past, that would make them think this?

[–] [email protected] 211 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah yeah I'm sure they will do all sorts of gasping and then confirm him anyway. Despite what they say the lot of them are just Trump sycophants at this point.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That was the whole of his last administration.

"What he's done is just awful. It must stop. This is the last time." For four years.

I'm just going to spend the next four years treating it like comedy. Nothing else I can do until the mid terms.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Call your Senators, give them your name, zip code, and briefly tell them you oppose these noms. It DOES make a difference! Democracy doesn't stop at the ballot box, it has to be fought for

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Unless you live in a red state, it doesn’t matter. It requires a simple majority to confirm.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 80 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You've seen how many people have railed against Trump only to turn right back around and toss his salad. Trump has dirt on these people, like mutually assured destruction level dirt.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The "dirt" is not being re-elected because they dare question Trump.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's what is ridiculous to me. The consequences are literally that they might lose their job. Yeah it sucks for them a little bit, but the alternative is destroying our fucking country. It's amazing how many of them choose to bend the knee time and time again.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I believe the calculus is "A even more extreme MAGA diehard will take my place."

Which is 100% true.

Still extremely self-serving, but kinda reasonable in a Machiavellian way.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

No, it's worse than that. It's "go to prison" level shit.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 days ago

Bunch of disappointed losers sad that daddy picked someone else to be his special boy. Disgust would require these shitsacks to have morals.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Leopards...leopards everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

who spoke on the condition of anonymity

Definitely brings a feline word to mind.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And faces! Don't forget the faces.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Eugh. Raw face is just gross.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Great accelerationist pick, appreciated by both nazis and tankies

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He's constantly Tarzaning from Trump's nuts, so he meets all of Trump's qualifications.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›